If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

This law seems unnecessary to me. This type of harrassment or abuse is presently dealt with by the people incharge of the website, or if it is really serious, the offenders ISP, correct? If your ISP revokes your access, you are pretty much dead in the water as far as annoying people goes, and the same applies to getting banned from a site.

I know your type, you think "I'll just get me a costume, rip off the neighborhood kids". Next thing you know, you've got a jet shaped like a skull with lasers on the front!
-The Monarch.

This law seems unnecessary to me. This type of harrassment or abuse is presently dealt with by the people incharge of the website, or if it is really serious, the offenders ISP, correct? If your ISP revokes your access, you are pretty much dead in the water as far as annoying people goes, and the same applies to getting banned from a site.

I know your type, you think "I'll just get me a costume, rip off the neighborhood kids". Next thing you know, you've got a jet shaped like a skull with lasers on the front!
-The Monarch.

Keep in mind that the signed law was an extention to the law specifically protecting women against violence, stalking and other nasty things. The problem is that the language of the part that covers "annoying" posts and cyber communication didn't limit the context. It can therefore be used without the normal controls.

Keep in mind that the signed law was an extention to the law specifically protecting women against violence, stalking and other nasty things. The problem is that the language of the part that covers "annoying" posts and cyber communication didn't limit the context. It can therefore be used without the normal controls.

Keep in mind that the signed law was an extention to the law specifically protecting women against violence, ...

I have not read through the law, but that is extremely disturbing to me: a sexiest law ?

My guess is the cyber annoyance part of the law ( from what I did read ) will eventually be found to be unconstitutional based on the fact that it is written overly broad; void-for-vagueness is the term the courts like to use. But how many people will be hurt by it before that happens?

The Internet is a great reference, a good place to get information, but never rely on just what you find on the Web, especially when it comes to the law. Always check with a reputable attorney versed in your particular applicable laws!

Everyone here from the US seems to be speaking very generally, as if the law is the same throughout the country.
Something to remember here in the US: each state creates and interprets its own laws, and the persons enforcing the laws are subject to their respective laws. What do I mean by this?
Example: garbage ( my favorite example )
Federal law ( statute and case law ) allows federal authorities to seize and look through your garbage, without a warrant.
Many states provide "additional protection of their citizens" and prohibit or restrict in one way or another such actions. If your state has such prohibitions state and local officials would be tempered in such actions, but federal authorities, even within your state would not. They would be subject to only the federal laws. ( Exception: a local authority asks a fed to do it for their investigation, then the fed now becomes an extension of the local authority, bound by the state laws. )

Another: my state includes both DWI convictions and refusals on a persons driving record. There may be some states that don't. ( but keep in mind, this too may change due to new regulations concerning commercial drivers licenses: it may become necessary for all states to keep such records )

As far as |3lack|ce's scenarios:
For the inventory searches of impounded vehicles, ( see COLORADO v. BERTINE ), there are some requirements which might have to be meet before being permissible ( as an example, see FLORDIA v. WELLS ).

Cops say later the reason was 'a random insurance/registration check' - this is a legal and valid reason to stop someone even if they have stopped no other vehicles that day for that reason.

You might want to check out DELAWARE v. PROUSE about restrictions that may apply.

I don't proclaim myself to be an expert in the law, far from it.
I've just had reasons in the past to study things like this, thought some might now benefit from it. Personally, I'd rather be rebuilding my network.
Remember,Always check with a reputable attorney versed in your particular applicable laws!

" And maddest of all, to see life as it is and not as it should be" --Miguel Cervantes

Keep in mind that the signed law was an extention to the law specifically protecting women against violence, ...

I have not read through the law, but that is extremely disturbing to me: a sexiest law ?

My guess is the cyber annoyance part of the law ( from what I did read ) will eventually be found to be unconstitutional based on the fact that it is written overly broad; void-for-vagueness is the term the courts like to use. But how many people will be hurt by it before that happens?

The Internet is a great reference, a good place to get information, but never rely on just what you find on the Web, especially when it comes to the law. Always check with a reputable attorney versed in your particular applicable laws!

Everyone here from the US seems to be speaking very generally, as if the law is the same throughout the country.
Something to remember here in the US: each state creates and interprets its own laws, and the persons enforcing the laws are subject to their respective laws. What do I mean by this?
Example: garbage ( my favorite example )
Federal law ( statute and case law ) allows federal authorities to seize and look through your garbage, without a warrant.
Many states provide "additional protection of their citizens" and prohibit or restrict in one way or another such actions. If your state has such prohibitions state and local officials would be tempered in such actions, but federal authorities, even within your state would not. They would be subject to only the federal laws. ( Exception: a local authority asks a fed to do it for their investigation, then the fed now becomes an extension of the local authority, bound by the state laws. )

Another: my state includes both DWI convictions and refusals on a persons driving record. There may be some states that don't. ( but keep in mind, this too may change due to new regulations concerning commercial drivers licenses: it may become necessary for all states to keep such records )

As far as |3lack|ce's scenarios:
For the inventory searches of impounded vehicles, ( see COLORADO v. BERTINE ), there are some requirements which might have to be meet before being permissible ( as an example, see FLORDIA v. WELLS ).

Cops say later the reason was 'a random insurance/registration check' - this is a legal and valid reason to stop someone even if they have stopped no other vehicles that day for that reason.

You might want to check out DELAWARE v. PROUSE about restrictions that may apply.

I don't proclaim myself to be an expert in the law, far from it.
I've just had reasons in the past to study things like this, thought some might now benefit from it. Personally, I'd rather be rebuilding my network.
Remember,Always check with a reputable attorney versed in your particular applicable laws!

" And maddest of all, to see life as it is and not as it should be" --Miguel Cervantes

As far as |3lack|ce's scenarios:
For the inventory searches of impounded vehicles, ( see COLORADO v. BERTINE ), there are some requirements which might have to be meet before being permissible ( as an example, see FLORDIA v. WELLS ).

and

You might want to check out DELAWARE v. PROUSE about restrictions that may apply.

Teach ME to discuss law without Mrs|ce present :P Thanks for the precedents on those, I'll look 'em up in westlaw.

Even a broken watch is correct twice a day.

Which coder said that nobody could outcode Microsoft in their own OS? Write a bit and make a fortune!

As far as |3lack|ce's scenarios:
For the inventory searches of impounded vehicles, ( see COLORADO v. BERTINE ), there are some requirements which might have to be meet before being permissible ( as an example, see FLORDIA v. WELLS ).

and

You might want to check out DELAWARE v. PROUSE about restrictions that may apply.

Teach ME to discuss law without Mrs|ce present :P Thanks for the precedents on those, I'll look 'em up in westlaw.

Even a broken watch is correct twice a day.

Which coder said that nobody could outcode Microsoft in their own OS? Write a bit and make a fortune!